• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

No. It's not an overstep when a new application is denied. It most certainly is an overstep when a decades-old trademark is rescinded, and just magically coincidentally when it is politically convenient to do so.

If it's not an overstep to deny a new application, it's not an overstep to rescind a trademark after further review, no matter how long it's been.
 
You don't get to decide what is disparaging to another group.

You know, the only reason this hasn't already been dealt with and the word isn't more disparaged to the general public is because the people it is used against where mostly killed off.

I don't get to post my opinion?

5 people filed this suit. We've been down this path repeatedly in this thread.
 
You don't get to decide what is disparaging to another group.

You know, the only reason this hasn't already been dealt with and the word isn't more disparaged to the general public is because the people it is used against where mostly killed off.

Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is hyperbole. There are 2.9 million American Indians in the 2010 census and that group is growing at twice the rate of the whole U.S.
 
If it's not an overstep to deny a new application, it's not an overstep to rescind a trademark after further review, no matter how long it's been.

You're making a great argument as to why giving the government power over trademarks is a really bad idea.
 
I don't get to post my opinion?

5 people filed this suit. We've been down this path repeatedly in this thread.

I'm saying your opinion if the word redskin is an offensive slur to Native Americans means jack ****.
 
Your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is hyperbole. There are 2.9 million American Indians in the 2010 census and that group is growing at twice the rate of the whole U.S.

2.9 million out of of nation of 300 million. Not quite the numbers that would be if our nation didn't try to kill them out.
 
2.9 million out of of nation of 300 million. Not quite the numbers that would be if our nation didn't try to kill them out.

How long ago was that again?
 
I'm saying your opinion if the word redskin is an offensive slur to Native Americans means jack ****.

Ah, so now I understand. You don't think as a citizen I have a First Amendment right to voice my opinion. Got it.
 
Do you also approve of the federal government essentially blackmailing the states to do their bidding by threatening to withhold highway funding, etc.? Pretty much the same coercion, just a different issue.

The Washington Redskins aren't a state, and they are the ones that violated the patent rules.
 
2.9 million out of of nation of 300 million. Not quite the numbers that would be if our nation didn't try to kill them out.

The motive was not to kill them out. The motive was to grab their land. Bloody land grabbing was everywhere in the world at that time, the US was not different.
 
Ah, so now I understand. You don't think as a citizen I have a First Amendment right to voice my opinion. Got it.

I didn't say that, you have every right to say what you think. All I'm doing is using my First Amendment right to tell you that your opinion on this subject means jack ****.
 
The Washington Redskins isn't a state, and they are the ones that violated the patent rules.

Apparently not, as the name has been trademarked for decades. Unless, of course, you're saying that laws and rules should be constantly moving targets subject to the whims of whoever is in charge on any given day.
 
How long ago was that again?

Doesn't change my point that a big reason why people don't think this word is racist is because there aren't enough people in the group that it is disparaging to stand up against it.
 
Apparently not, as the name has been trademarked for decades. Unless, of course, you're saying that laws and rules should be constantly moving targets subject to the whims of whoever is in charge on any given day.

Things are always up for review as we grow and move on as a society, this is no different.
 
I didn't say that, you have every right to say what you think. All I'm doing is using my First Amendment right to tell you that your opinion on this subject means jack ****.

My opinion means jack **** because the US government is the arbitor. Thank you for acknowledging that I have a right to say what I think. Then the point of your original post to me was just to be emotional and contrary?
 
Doesn't change my point that a big reason why people don't think this word is racist is because there aren't enough people in the group that it is disparaging to stand up against it.

Well when the majority of the American Indian population doesn't think it is disparaging there is likely never going to be enough of them.
 
The Washington Redskins aren't a state, and they are the ones that violated the patent rules.

Spare me. The great thing about the rule is that the government gets to decide on a completely subjective and arbitrary manner what violates the rule and what doesn't.

Hell, the government doesn't even need to stand by their obligations, but just claim years after the fact that the rules were violated.
 
My opinion means jack **** because the US government is the arbitor. Thank you for acknowledging that I have a right to say what I think. Then the point of your original post to me was just to be emotional and contrary?

The point of my original post was to tell you that your opinion on this means jack ****. You can't decide what is disparaging to another group of people; that isn't how it works.. You may have an opinion on it and voice that opinion, but it means absolutely nothing when it comes to acknowledging whether or not that word is offensive to the group it is aimed at.
 
2.9 million out of of nation of 300 million. Not quite the numbers that would be if our nation didn't try to kill them out.

Do you have any facts that support your guilt? You said that they were "mostly killed off", this isn't true. Can you point to any law, policy or treaty that directs that the American Indian be killed off? I can't. My charge of hyperbole stands.
 
You don't get to decide what is disparaging to another group.

You know, the only reason this hasn't already been dealt with and the word isn't more disparaged to the general public is because the people it is used against where mostly killed off.

Well, that and that the majority of the ones that weren't killed off hadn't been in favor of changing the name.

Part of why the previous attempt by the PTO to remove trademark protection was overturned was because the courts found that they did not have sufficient evidence to suggest that the word met the criteria for disparaging. There was not evidence that a significant enough portion of the potentialy affected population found the word in such a usage to be disparaging.

The question for the courts will essentially be whether or not there NOW is enough evidence to suggest this. To the opposition to the names credit, unlike last time they have the support of the National Congress of American Indians on their side stating that it is offensive and should be changed, and that group represents roughly 30% of native americans in the country. Now, it'd be incorrect to suggest that such a thing means 30% of native americans oppose the name but it is reasonble to say that the representatives for 30% of the population suggest it's offensive. Which may or may not ultimately be enough to rule that a large enough portion of the population feels that it's disparaging.

But the reason it wasn't previously was, in part, because there was no evidence that a significant portion of the Native American population found the use of "Redskins" by the Washington Redskins to be offensive.
 
You can't decide what is disparaging to another group of people; that isn't how it works.

Cool...I hope you give this message with the same venom to those claiming in BROAD terms that "native americans" do find it offensive. Because those individuals are "deciding what is disparaging" to another group as well.
 
You don't actually think that the Indians invented casino's, do you?

Of course not. However, it's obvious they have developed the skills to run them today. Indian Tribes have managed to turned back long running opposition to gambling by banking on their special status, and the classifications of their lands as independent nations. Works for me, I don't do that type of gambling.
 
Cool...I hope you give this message with the same venom to those claiming in BROAD terms that "native americans" do find it offensive. Because those individuals are "deciding what is disparaging" to another group as well.

Uh, what?

If an American Indian feels calling him a redskin is offensive, he's infringing on your right to call him a redskin. Really?
 
Doesn't change my point that a big reason why people don't think this word is racist is because there aren't enough people in the group that it is disparaging to stand up against it.
So, essentially, you are clairvoyant and can read people minds and feelings, and you know what's better for them than they know for themselves.

Spare me. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom